I had a professor that said that the Holy Roman Empire was very badly named because it was not Holy, not Roman, nor an Empire... Just a bunch of places the Romans claimed they had control over.

Anyway, I think the Spanish empire is often under-recognized in importance. Really, the Americas are only a two-language hemisphere: English and Spanish. If you think about that compared to anyplace else in the world, its truly amazing. It also tells you a lot about history.

Of course I know Portuguese (not a bad empire either for such a tiny country) is spoken and some French, but obviously you can tell that at one time the fight for world dominance was a race between Spain and England: and we're still living with the results of that race with the language division in the Americas. Its very interesting.

Oh my God, where to start? You had the Japanese, the Chinese, the Mongolians, the Aztecs, the Babylonians, Phonecians, and several more from way back when. Closer to modern times you had the Spanish, which WAS a huge and brutal empire, the Romans, the British, the Austrian (a bit controversial though), and in Africa we had the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, and a few other conquering tribes. And finally, today we have the American.

Actually I think the modern corporate empires deserve some thought or discussion. The large multi nationals have sales each year that are the same size or bigger than most countries. For instance, the revenues of Exxon equal or exceed the Gorss Domestic Product of Greece, and Greece is 10 million people, a member of the EU, etc...

So, should the corporations have seats on the UN? They are obviously more powerful than many nations, and this could lead them to being used as a UN tool, and perhaps even some UN governance imposed on them. Obviously, its not possible, but its worth thinking about something in that direction: that many companies are more influential than many countries.

read thisIt was the Muslims from Arabia, nomads and settled people alike, whose invasions in the 6th and 7th cent. widely diffused both the Arabic language and Islam. They founded a vast empire, which at its height stretched from the Atlantic Ocean on the west, across North Africa and the Middle East, to central Asia on the east. The Arabs became the rulers of many different peoples, and gradually a great Arab civilization was built up. Although many of its cultural leaders were not ethnically Arabs (some were not even Muslims, but Christians and Jews), the civilization reflected Arab values, tastes, and traditions. Education flourished in the Islamic lands, and literature, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, and science were particularly developed by the Arabs. At the same time in all the provinces of the huge empire, except in Persia, Arabic became the chief spoken language. The waves of Arab conquest across the East and into Europe widened the scope of their civilization and contributed greatly to world development. In Europe they were particularly important in Sicily, which they held from the 9th to the late 11th cent., and the civilization of the Moors in Spain was part of the great Arabic pattern. Christian scholars in those two lands gained much from Islamic knowledge, and scholasticism and the beginnings of modern Western science were derived in part from the Arabs. The Arabs also introduced Europe to the Greek philosophers, whose writings they had already translated into Arabic. The emergence of the Seljuk Turks in the 11th cent. and of the Ottoman Turks in the 13th cent. ended the specifically Arab dominance in Islam, though Muslim culture still remained on the old Arab foundations.

I think if you're looking for long-term influence, then the Roman Empire and the British Empire were the greatest of all time. The Roman Empire first spread "civilization" if you will, over a vast expanse-it's reach can still be seen all over Europe and the Mediterranian. And for worldwide influence, you only need to look at the British Empire, and the nations it spawned: the U.S., India, Canada. It was truly the most expansive empire in the history of the world-from one end of the globe to another.

So, should the corporations have seats on the UN? They are obviously more powerful than many nations, and this could lead them to being used as a UN tool, and perhaps even some UN governance imposed on them. Obviously, its not possible, but its worth thinking about something in that direction: that many companies are more influential than many countries.

This is all well and good....but using your example of Exxon. Exxon makes the vast majority of its revenues within the domestic American market (and limited revenues thru its overseas Esso subsidiaries). America already has a seat in the UN.

But assuming that just because a company may have larger revenues than some countries have GDP doesn't mean that it has more influence than those countries. With Greece and the problems surrounding that country, just how much influence would Exxon be able to exert over problems of Albania, Macedonia and the Balkans? Zip I would say.

Plus would you want a company such as Exxon which has such scant regard for the environment on any decision making committee?

And how about the Dutch Empire?????? Don't forget that New York, Suriname, Indonesia(and more)where once a part of our empire But we are still a great empire, I mean don't underestimate the fact that the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are still part of it